Axe-Fx II "Quantum" Rev 2.02 Firmware Release

Speculum Speculorum said:
There are many types of improvements that take place with fw updates. Effects improvements, new effects, parameter adjustments, new parameters, improved cab modeling, and yes... improvements to the modeling of the pre and power amps themselves, which are still models and are consistently updated to get closer to the sound of an amp ... But that's the nature of this game. You can't simultaneously have improvements to FW (with stable releases), and have access to deep parameters you might find useful, and not have to dick with them should you choose to update.
Click to expand...
My comments in part are driven by a comment Cliff made not too long ago about the Fender Twin (or it could have been the Deluxe) where when someone complained about the Axe model he went back to the reference amp and said that the Axe and the amp essentially sounded the same. If that is the case for the other amps too then the current amps in the
Axe are done. No need to have the sound change radically, add more advanced parameters that will radically change next time around etc. Let's move on to effects, new (bass?) amps etc. Again (a seemingly necessary disclaimer here), this all just my own personal opinion.
 
zenaxe said:
Well, a lot of people mod, EQ, boost, and just plain fight against their real world amps. A lot of signature amps are just some artist's take on a classic circuit but it has those little real world equivalent of 'advanced parameter' changes built-in... The advanced parameters are a way for those guys to get the tone and response that would have required a soldering iron in the real world. It really doesn't say anything about the accuracy of a model either way. A model could be dead on accurate and still require tweaking for someone who is particularly strict in their requirements.
Click to expand...
Sure. Now that we have those, do hey need to change radically in a potential future FW update?
 
Crapshoes said:
It's not like you can't compensate for that with some quick changes anyway! I mean no one turns on an amp at a music store and expects it to sound good right away. We're lucky that with the Axe most amp blocks sound phenomenal from the get go, and personally I liked both 2.01 and 2.02, even though they might have introduced some necessary tweaks.
Click to expand...
I asked that earlier and was told no, quick change doesn't do it :O
 
Swan1 said:
My comments in part are driven by a comment Cliff made not too long ago about the Fender Twin (or it could have been the Deluxe) where when someone complained about the Axe model he went back to the reference amp and said that the Axe and the amp essentially sounded the same. If that is the case for the other amps too then the current amps in the
Axe are done. No need to have the sound change radically, add more advanced parameters that will radically change next time around etc. Let's move on to effects, new (bass?) amps etc. Again (a seemingly necessary disclaimer here), this all just my own personal opinion.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sure the references are the same, but we continue to see things like Quantum, Quantum 2.0, and in the release notes things like "further refinement of preamp modeling" etc. We may be getting to a point where further refinement is next to impossible, but I'm just pointing out that people were saying the modeling was perfect back when we were in the early days of the axe-fx II, and let me tell ya'... we've come a long way, baby. LOL
 
zenaxe said:
Well, a lot of people mod, EQ, boost, and just plain fight against their real world amps. A lot of signature amps are just some artist's take on a classic circuit but it has those little real world equivalent of 'advanced parameter' changes built-in... The advanced parameters are a way for those guys to get the tone and response that would have required a soldering iron in the real world. It really doesn't say anything about the accuracy of a model either way. A model could be dead on accurate and still require tweaking for someone who is particularly strict in their requirements.
Click to expand...

There's a reason why the HRM controls in a Dumble are on the inside, and you have to take the amp apart to fiddle with them.
 
∞Fractals said:
[speculation]
Or they are using different amps; which are affected differently by the algorithms.

So it quite possibly depends on your "go-to" amps and how they are modeled (perhaps)?
[/speculation]
Click to expand...
Yes, this has always been the other part of my theory (in addition to the deep edit crew as above ;) ) as to why some people react very strongly to some firmware updates that seem to be very transparent to another group and vice versa. If something affects the higher gain Marshalls substantially; I'll notice it for sure. Dumbelesques or Fenders? Not so much. The vast majority of the time these are positive.

I think this creates some of the impression that 'outsiders' get when they say the "Fractal Fan Boys talk about every FW update like it is a huge game changer blah, blah, blah". Truth is different subsets appreciate different updates more than others but from the outside it looks like a never ending stream of rainbows and unicorns and other too good to be true tales of wonder.
 
One point I have seen along all those Firmwares:

If the vintageamps get better, more "warm" and great break-up-tones, the modern or heavy amps are getting more "flubby" at the bass frequences and loosing tightness (so I have often read here in different posts).

I got no idea about programming, but seems, that these two things are difficult to do in one Firmware?
 
i suppose the beta testing team is made of different users, some more familiar with higher gain amps, some more familiar with vintage / cleaner amps, so my guess is that the new fw would accommodate and satisfy both groups feedback before being released
 
zenaxe said:
Is it the same reason they're covered with glue from a glue gun? LOL. :D
Click to expand...

That would be great!

Legend has it that Dumble was just the tiniest bit cranky, and he got fed up with people taking the amp home, fiddling with the HRM and then calling him up and complaining that the amp sounded like crap - even though it sounded great at Dumble's workshop.

I find there is certainly some element of that with the AxeFX. So many knobs to tweak, so few hours to play. I find the best approach for me is to master a few of the elements at a time, and stick to what I've learned for the most part. For me, that's mostly sag, negative feedback and the high and low filters (as far as "advanced" parameters go). I try to pay attention to what people are talking about here and then experiment to see what my ears can hear. So I'm playing with the harmonics now, and I'll venture into the speaker resonance parameters a little bit when I can't find a cab that seems quite right.

As to new FW screwing up highly tweaked amp blocks: I have a suspicion that a certain amount of those tweaks are to get around difficulties posed by the state of the firmware at any given time. If Cliff makes a major improvement to some aspect of the amp modelling, then some of those tweaks might not make sense any more. Say, for instance, that you had messed with the preamp tube bias to get something more "realistic" in an amp block. Then Cliff remodels the tube types and makes them more realistic; maybe the preamp biasing tweak isn't needed any more. You'd be better off resetting the block, then auditioning the different tube types to see if any one of them nails the sound you're looking for better than your tweaks.
 
I agree that reloading the amps each firmware is absolutely necessary in order to rule out the possibility that our previous tweaks have been corrected twice.

I have been an Axe owner since FW 9 and I have to say that ever since the Quantum revelation, I have finally gotten the softer, spongier more dynamic and blooming tones that I'd been waiting for. I also notice the Rectifiers and other heavier amps sounded tighter and more true to the real amps. Today, there is a very large diversity between models which in the old days, it seemed many sounded the same.

Couldn't we keep the option to implement say the last 2 or 3 major versions of modeling say (Quantum 1 and 2) in the same way he is implementing the 2 last versions (2.01 and 2.02). The very old models being deprecated. This way if someone wanted a slightly older version of one particular amp, it might be possible to keep that?

I fear that someday the modeling will take a turn for the worst (for me) but it happens when we finally get the pitch formant, or other nice effect upgrade. Just wondering if Cliff has any input into how difficult it actually would be to integrate.

I am completely blown away with my tone the last few updates and could stay here for good. Thanks for all the hard work!
 
Johnnyh64 said:
Couldn't we keep the option to implement say the last 2 or 3 major versions of modeling say (Quantum 1 and 2) in the same way he is implementing the 2 last versions (2.01 and 2.02). The very old models being deprecated. This way if someone wanted a slightly older version of one particular amp, it might be possible to keep that?
Click to expand...
Then people will start complaining that models don't sound the same in the modeled old firmware as they did in the original old firmware :rolleyes:, at which point, Cliff will sell FAS to Peavey and move to the Virgin Islands...
 
Speculum Speculorum said:
There are many types of improvements that take place with fw updates. Effects improvements, new effects, parameter adjustments, new parameters, improved cab modeling, and yes... improvements to the modeling of the pre and power amps themselves, which are still models and are consistently updated to get closer to the sound of an amp. It's a modeler. A really good one, but it's still based on measurements that Cliff himself is obviously refining as time goes on.

Nevertheless, what I was saying is I understand when guys find a sound and stick with a firmware for a very long time, or when they get frustrated because they know they're going to have to redo a bunch of work if they DO update.

I have a handful of presets that I use. Some guys that are sessions guitarists might very well have 100+ different presets they use, and the idea of resetting advanced parameters with another update is no small task when you have to keep track of what you did to different amps, or even if you have a speaker tab setting you like with an IR you use on a bunch of different presets. It would be a right pain in the ass if you were a gigging musician that used that many and you had to go back through everything. But that's the nature of this game. You can't simultaneously have improvements to FW (with stable releases), and have access to deep parameters you might find useful, and not have to dick with them should you choose to update.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting issue. The come back is always, if you like a firmware just stick with that one. It would be ideal (to us) if Fractal would simply work for each of us as independent musicians/producers, tailoring a specific version for every one of us. But the path that has resulted in the present condition of the Firmware, IMHO amazing, has been one where the community as a whole has tended to move together, and if not for that who does one listen to regarding the nuances that result in the next stages and inspired innovations.

Cliff's huge grasp of the various factors of his modeler happens to be not merely accompanied by our input, but benefited greatly at times from it (though I wish I knew enough to contribute - I am a total novice in terms of amp electronics and how they might interact).

So isn't it fortunate that he does not need to deal with many tailored versions in responding to us? (You would need a forum for the other versions, or the benefit of having this, for the community, would be nil.)

Already Fractal supports people on multiple firmwares, because we can't be forced to upgrade every month or two. But its with supporting a project that has modules with each one having its own series of versions, that becomes an exponential nightmare.

My bottom line here, IMHO, is that very few times has anyone opted to stick with a firmware for other than tone reasons.

This alone is why it would be unnecessary to expect Fractal to be able to service/support issues cropping up with people with combinations of amp firmware, fx firmware, etc. (and at an exorbitant cost in terms of releasing, debugging)

Sorry. My two cents.
 
Speculum Speculorum said:
That's the gold. But that also means when system updates happen I have to be able to go back through and alter the things I had going on before that I know I'm going to like. I don't do this blindly. I always listen to the amps that are reset, and I almost always end up doing the same things again. That, my friend, is the handcuffs.
Click to expand...

I totally agree that this is the handcuffs. IMHO what would counteract that would be to have Cliff go open source, lol. Which for heaven's sake is not my recommendation. Rule by everybody is no sane way to exist where quick innovation is occurring (open source is great where it does work). And for what is desired here, probably if the focus were diverted to highlighting the changes (and pathways forward and back in terms of tone) in each firmware (instead of deftly concealing them for a short time while we move further ahead), we as a whole would totally lose out. I feel that for an innovative personality to thrive they need to focus on innovation.
 
Last edited:
Danny Danzi said:
Hubi, not sure if you are still interested in this..but I just finished a video showing how the harmonics knob works for me. It's rendering now....I'll post it to a new thread as soon as it's done. It may help someone. :)
Click to expand...
I´m - and shure many others here - are very interested. Even a video - great.
I think to hear what we are talking about helps a lot to understand the subjective perception of somebody.
 
I still think there may be ways to compromise on this issue - by making it easier to recover from an upgrade. What about focusing our requests on the AxeEdit team instead of the modeling code? Since AxeEdit has to reread the block defs after every upgrade, how about asking for a way to highlight where they don't match so we can easily see what parms need to be checked after the update? Highlighing deep parms that will get reset? Asking if we want to reload default deep parms, or keep existing?

The point is, I think there are ways to simplify the recovery process - which may make the frequent model updates much easier to handle.

Just my opinion obviously...
RR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom